Kisela v. Hughes

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsQualified ImmunitySection 1983Fourth AmendmentExcessive Forcequalified immunityclearly established lawexcessive force

Facts

Officers responded to a 911 report that a woman had been hacking a tree with a kitchen knife and acting erratically. When they arrived, they saw Hughes emerge from a house carrying a large knife, walk toward Chadwick, and stop within about six feet of her, while the officers stood behind a chain-link fence with a locked gate. The officers drew their guns and at least twice ordered Hughes to drop the knife, but she did not acknowledge them or drop it. Within less than a minute from first seeing Chadwick, Kisela dropped to the ground to get a line of fire through the fence and shot Hughes four times because he believed she threatened Chadwick.

Issue

Whether, on the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Hughes, clearly established law made it beyond debate that Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force. The Court expressly declined to decide whether a Fourth Amendment violation actually occurred.

Rule

Qualified immunity attaches unless existing precedent placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate. In the Fourth Amendment excessive-force context, specificity is especially important, and officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue; the general rules of Graham and Garner do not by themselves clearly establish the law outside an obvious case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Officer Elena Mora in Phoenix responds to a report that Devin Cross has been acting erratically in a front yard while holding a meat cleaver. Within seconds of arrival, Mora sees Cross standing about four feet from a neighbor, ignoring repeated commands to drop the cleaver. Mora shoots Cross, who sues under § 1983.

Assuming a court does not decide whether Mora actually violated the Fourth Amendment, which is the strongest basis for granting Mora qualified immunity?

Explanation. The majority held that in Fourth Amendment excessive-force cases, specificity is especially important. Even if a constitutional violation is assumed, qualified immunity applies unless existing precedent placed the question beyond debate. General principles are not enough outside an obvious case, and a fast-moving confrontation involving an armed, noncompliant person near another individual is not such an obvious case.